Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Iasson
If anyone's interested, I think this is the same Iasson who was banned from kuro5hin. This thread may seem familiar. Rhobite 07:36, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Those interested in this discussion may like to compare Iasson's contributions to the article namespace [1] with his contributions to the wikipedia namespace [2]. Thryduulf 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It should be noted Rhobite is an administrator frequently accused of misusing his authority. Ollieplatt 19:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Rhobite has not, so far as I can tell, been accused of misusing his authority by anyone except yourself, so following him around and making this sort of statement amounts to a personal attack. Stop it. —Korath (Talk) 19:25, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually that's just not the case. Around ten users indicated on a recent RfC that he violates blocking policy. And a review of his edit history reveals he reverts more users than any other editor, with frequent blocking and very little positive contribution of his own. Ollieplatt 19:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Your claim that he reverts more users than any other editor is unsupportable. You have no basis to be making that claim, unless you have crawled through all the edit histories of all users. Tuf-Kat 19:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I will send a *free* copy of the US Constitution with the First Amendment highlighted to anyone finding any editor who reverts more than Rhobite. He is chronic revertator. Ollieplatt 21:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think you misunderestimate him. And Wikipedia is not a US government body - David Gerard 22:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I will send a *free* copy of the US Constitution with the First Amendment highlighted to anyone finding any editor who reverts more than Rhobite. He is chronic revertator. Ollieplatt 21:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The RFC in question was deleted because it was not confirmed; as such, your claim of any number of editors indicating anything based on it is not verifiable - David Gerard 22:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ahah, David, I kept a copy. It is therefore highly verifiable. Shall I repost it somewhere? My offer of a *free* copy of the US Constitution with *highlighted* First Amendment remains open. No takers yet. Not surprising. Btw, David, I think you are very good and exactly what an admin should be. You are in stark contrast to partisans like Rhobite. Wikipedia is very much governed by the US Constitution by the way. It is hosted in the United States and as such is governed entirely by US law. Ollieplatt 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The first amendment forbids Congress from making laws against free speech. Wikipedia is not Congress, and is under no legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech. Raven42 05:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Raven42 has proven he can read, for that he is congratulated. Case law has developed to protect free speech in many circumstances, building on these rights. They apply here. Not that anyone should make legal threats. Come to that Wikipedia is a celebration of free speech of which all should be proud. However, some editors, entrusted with great authority, are besmirching it. Ollieplatt 06:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is highly irrelevant to Iasson's RfC, but nobody has a constitutional right to edit Wikipedia at all. The servers are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and that foundation can set who is allowed to edit here and what they can say. The foundation allowed anyone except a few banned users to edit, and to say anything they want within policy, but this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Tuf-Kat 06:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Raven42 has proven he can read, for that he is congratulated. Case law has developed to protect free speech in many circumstances, building on these rights. They apply here. Not that anyone should make legal threats. Come to that Wikipedia is a celebration of free speech of which all should be proud. However, some editors, entrusted with great authority, are besmirching it. Ollieplatt 06:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The first amendment forbids Congress from making laws against free speech. Wikipedia is not Congress, and is under no legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech. Raven42 05:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ahah, David, I kept a copy. It is therefore highly verifiable. Shall I repost it somewhere? My offer of a *free* copy of the US Constitution with *highlighted* First Amendment remains open. No takers yet. Not surprising. Btw, David, I think you are very good and exactly what an admin should be. You are in stark contrast to partisans like Rhobite. Wikipedia is very much governed by the US Constitution by the way. It is hosted in the United States and as such is governed entirely by US law. Ollieplatt 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Your claim that he reverts more users than any other editor is unsupportable. You have no basis to be making that claim, unless you have crawled through all the edit histories of all users. Tuf-Kat 19:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually that's just not the case. Around ten users indicated on a recent RfC that he violates blocking policy. And a review of his edit history reveals he reverts more users than any other editor, with frequent blocking and very little positive contribution of his own. Ollieplatt 19:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Rhobite has not, so far as I can tell, been accused of misusing his authority by anyone except yourself, so following him around and making this sort of statement amounts to a personal attack. Stop it. —Korath (Talk) 19:25, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Comment on Ollieplatt's summary
- I don't know whether comments on summaries belong on the main page or on here, so I have opted for here. I also think that this summary should be in the response section, but as this is the first RfC I've been involved in I may be wrong about this.
Ollieplatt wrote: "Expressing a view - however unpopular - by voting cannot be said to be disruption. This RfC should be withdrawn, redrafted and if it makes even the mildest threshold of logic be resubmitted. Wikipedia ought not be a tyranny of the majority. Ollieplatt 19:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)" my comment: The point of this RfC is not that Iasson is expresing a view by voting; he is disrupting valid VfDs by decalaring arbitary requirements about the vote, including:
- a requirement for a percentage of active voters (or sometimes a percentage of wikipedians) to express an opinion
- a percentage of "delete" votes (e.g. 70%, 50%+2votes, 100%-1vote, 2/3rds)
- the duration of the vote (up to one month)
- the length of time the eventual decision is valid for (1month - 3 years).
- The parameters are different for each vote, and sometimes bizarre values are used.
- I know of nowhere he has formally proposed these changes to the VfD procedure (other than on individual votes for deletion), let alone his having gained support for them.
- The rection on the VfDs involved seems to range from ignoring him, to discussion dominating the vote (I admit that I have been involved in such discussions).
- --Thryduulf 20:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough but can't you just point out these entirely reasonable arguments on the voting pages. No one should unilaterally impose their own rules, although many administrators think they can. Rhobite is one of many examples. Ollieplatt 21:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If you mean what I think you mean (i.e. Can we point out to Iasson that you can't uinilaterally impose your own rules, and that VfD pages are not the place to propose changes), then we have tried. See the links in section 1.2 (Evidence of Disputed Behaviour) of the RfC article [3] -Thryduulf 21:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes but presumably the "damage" done by his assertions is undone each time you rebut them. Hence no problem. In Rhobite's case, he blocks users who have a different POV and then coerces people from joining RfC's against him, then encourages other users to block them so he's seen as acting with propriety. Most unbecoming. Ollieplatt 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please could I remind people this RfC is about Iasson not Rhobite. Discussion of the latter user should be moved to a more apropriate location Thryduulf 00:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)